The idea of secret justice, of someone being imprisoned without legal representation, without a fair trial is horrific. Surely this is exactly the sort of thing the ECHR is there to prevent?

Secret justice is abhorrent. I expect I will be howled down but I'm not keen on the idea of rape victims being anonymous. No other witness is; no other victim. And until a crime is proven with the conviction of the person charged, the person is an alleged victim. Either all parties are treated the same or none of them are. Skewing the rules in this way to make an open and fair trial secret in some way is very worrying.

And - yes - I know and sympathise with the counter-arguments. But still I am very uneasy.

I'm really torn on this one - because of the nature of the allegation - I'm personally in favour of anonynmity because it is used too often to maliciously accuse others from children against teachers to bunny boilers, or those who have a score to settle that requires no evidence et al. There is IMO something special about sex assaults - its intensely personal and usually HeSaid vs SheSaid. Let's not forget the accusations against the Neil Hamilton's here either as totally spurious.

There are of course well known cases of wider publicity bringing down a well known person or serial rapist as a result of publicity - we've a dozen or more very public figures either convicted or under investigated as a result of the lady who went on camera and accused Savile.

But on the otherhand we have the likes of Matthew Kelly who was maliciously maligned and never ever recovered - I lean to anonymity until the police feel there is a compelling multiple trail of evidence that overrides the total destruction of someone's alleged behaviour.

As people age, they tend to vote more and more right wing. The elderly do indeed die off quicker but the group are continually enlarged by the younger ones coming though. The tims of yesteryear are the UKIP voters of tomorrow.

I think that the mid-term "Should be Labour" protest vote going instead to UKIP is the most intriguing aspect of today's voting. Labour should be piling up votes from both Tories and LibDems. But the two Eds are not an attractive option, even as a means of poking the Coalition in the eye.

Taken together with Miliband's fiasco on the economy this week, it is an intriguing insight into what will happen two years from today...

He is not the right man to front a campaign. He looks and sounds wrong, and lacks presence and authority.

Thing about Ed Miliband is he's got almost everything you'd expect in a potential PM. Toughness, a head for strategy, a nose for the electorate, sharp communicator often flooring Cameron at PMQs. BUT just doesn't look like a natural. Clearly for casual / floating voters that can be crucial.

That said, few PMs have the lot (Thatcher and Blair at times I suppose)

Cameron and Brown looked like naturals, but just not very good underneath it.

Major, I suppose, was closest to Miliband. A good politician, somewhat lacking in the look of natural authority stakes. He won an election, of course!

Anyway, best leave the subject of Ed or the PBTories will be off on one again...

Carl, since you are evidently a fan, I will ask you a question I have asked others on here, and never received a reply.

Miliband's biggest role in government was as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. During his eighteen months in that role, what did he do to maintain security of energy supply in the long term in the UK?

(When I say security of energy supply, I mean ensuring we have enough energy to meet our needs, at a price where we can be competitive).

I am finding it increasingly annoying that a lot of people on PB seem to be responding to other people's comments by writing the name of the person (with an "at" sign in front) and then their response, without any indication of which comment they are responding to - or where it can be found.